Adverse inference from non-production of books justified restoration of addition where appellate relief lacked evidentiary basis.

An appellate deletion of an addition was held unsustainable where it rested on no cogent evidence and merely followed an order in another assessee's case with a materially different factual matrix. The assessee had failed to produce supporting material, books of account, or the joint venture records despite repeated requisitions, so the Assessing Officer's adverse inference was justified. The court noted that selective reliance on precedent cannot replace proof in a distinct dispute. The addition was therefore restored in substance, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the appellate authority deleting the addition of Rs.21,98,141/- was perverse and unsustainable for want of evidence.

Analysis: The addition arose from the assessee's claim that the amount received from the joint venture was not realisation of the market value of the land. The Assessing Officer had repeatedly called upon the assessee to produce supporting material and books of account, but no cogent evidence was produced. The appellate authority deleted the addition merely by relying on an earlier order in another assessee's case, although the factual matrix was different. The appellate authority therefore proceeded without any evidentiary basis to hold that the amount was received without deducting the cost of the land. The Tribunal also erred in applying precedents dealing with selective acceptance of orders in other cases, because the present matter turned on a distinct factual controversy and the assessee had failed to rebut the Assessing Officer's finding by evidence. An adverse inference was warranted from the non-production of the joint venture books.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was perverse. The appellate authority lacked a proper evidentiary basis to interfere with the assessment, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition was restored in substance, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order deleting an addition cannot stand when it is made without supporting evidence and by mechanically following an order in another case despite a materially different factual foundation; non-production of relevant books may justify an adverse inference.

---